Author
Topic: People that don't shoot in manual... (Read 44940 times)

I know the OP was half joking, but I hope he uses a handheld incident light meter to set his manual exposure.

Seriously though, I think M, Av, and Tv all rate as manual control as the exposure compensation control on these cameras is so useable; you can them see from the data how much away from the suggested 'correct' exposure you were for a particular shot.

Despite the metering sophistication and immediate histograms of modern digital an incident light meter can still be useful for putting the exposure straight on the money without having to take multiple test shots and adjusting until you are satisfied with histogram.

So to the OP: mine's a Western V ( well three actually including the one that was my fathers from 1968 !)

What's yours ?

Bloody hell, I had a weston V years ago, inherited from the first guy I ever assisted. He also gave me a real old Mamiya 645 when he retired. I totally regret selling them to fund the purchase of a Marshall amp and stack of cabs... but i was probably never going to use it in a professional capacity as everything had gone digital by then and I certainly couldn't afford a phase-1 digi-back for it.

Now in the studio I use a cheapo Sekonic L-308S just to balance the lighting. (you can't balance studio lights using the camera's in-built meter, obviously). I don't use it on the fly when shooting location, that'd be daft and a bit over kill in this modern age. I check the back of my camera like any good pro should...

Or you can use spot metering in-camera. Spot meter on your main subject and adjust/average from there if needed. Generally, I use Average Metering for low contrast scenes and spot metering for high contrast scenes. Most of the time I prioritize the exposure of the main subject.

The cameras meter still suffers from the 18%-problem, can't deal well with flash and isn't exactly convenient for contrast analysis or metering/establishing contrast ratios between multiple sources. (Not to think about precision. ) Like the difference between a pocket knife and a proper tool.

I'd rather set the camera for the part that is most difficult to control or to the parameters dictated by the concept and light the rest accordingly. Available light==all the lights available to me

Um, would you please enlighten simple /me about the 18% problem, obviously it's about the grey card density, what of what are talking specifically (link, keywords to google...)? Maybe this? http://www.richardhess.com/photo/18no.htm

I shoot Av with Matrix Metering 95% of the Time. With experience you know the situations when the camera is going to under/overexpose and you dial in the appropriate compensation . Like +1 when in Snow, -0.5 when in direct sunlight to minimize highlight clipping etc.

Works very well for me Also there are many Situations where you dont have time to set everything manual, like wedding reportage under stupid changing light.

Um, would you please enlighten simple /me about the 18% problem, obviously it's about the grey card density, what of what are talking specifically (link, keywords to google...)? Maybe this? http://www.richardhess.com/photo/18no.htm

I think Lawliet is meaning the reflected light problem.

Despite all the tech, measuring the light intensity falling on the subject ( incident meter) is still useful for short cutting to the 'correct' exposure in challenging light conditions.

I think Lawliet is meaning the reflected light problem. Despite all the tech, measuring the light intensity falling on the subject ( incident meter) is still useful for short cutting to the 'correct' exposure in challenging light conditions.

The light meter simply has no clue what it is metering. Unless you want to shoot a gray card or something equivalent you'd have to find out the relative albedo first to get an idea of how much you have to correct the reading or rely on guesswork. Thats more trouble then taking an incidence reading in the first place, nothing gained but an opportunity to make mistakes.

Um, would you please enlighten simple /me about the 18% problem, obviously it's about the grey card density, what of what are talking specifically (link, keywords to google...)? Maybe this? http://www.richardhess.com/photo/18no.htm

I think Lawliet is meaning the reflected light problem.

Despite all the tech, measuring the light intensity falling on the subject ( incident meter) is still useful for short cutting to the 'correct' exposure in challenging light conditions.

Measuring the light intensity falling on my subjects usually wouldn't work. They bite.

Getting annoyed at the way someone else shoots is like getting annoyed when the guy in front of you at Subway doesn't order the same sandwich you do.

There are plenty of real things to get annoyed over, becoming upset or annoyed over something that has zero impact on your own ability to photograph, live your live or make your own choices is asinine.

This doesn't mean there isn't merit in discussing the differences, pros and cons of each etc. But starting out with a blanket statement implying there is one 'right' way to do things and its your way is just ignorant and inflammatory.

I may have to employ a little tact and choose my words more wisely when I start my new topic later about how I think folk that use zoom lenses over primes are just lazy and don't understand photography

Like this :-)? It's a subject interested in photogs using manual metering and esp. semi-trolls who like engineering people into controversial threads even if it'd be an interesting topic w/o all the heat. Remember: Don't feed the troll, eh, the snake.

I realize there are car afficionados out there who love their stick shift, but why not take advantage of the dual clutch auto and all the extra speed it gives you .

Oh man..you had the analogy going VERY well, until the end there with the car attempt....<P>

For a sports car, especially a high end sports car, you want a manual transmission...if not for resale value, but for performance.

You're generally gonna get the better times and stats with manual over automatic, if you know how to drive the manual...

I've never owned a car with auto transmission, and only one car have I ever owned had more than 2 seats (that one was an '86 911 Turbo, but those rear seats aren't really useable for anything but 2x bags of groceries).....

LOL...anyway, good thoughts on the camera, but ugh...a sports car with auto transmission? A waste of good steel....

If I remember correctly, Nissan's R35 has an auto gear box that is pretty much faster than a stick shift.

I realize there are car afficionados out there who love their stick shift, but why not take advantage of the dual clutch auto and all the extra speed it gives you .

Oh man..you had the analogy going VERY well, until the end there with the car attempt....<P>

For a sports car, especially a high end sports car, you want a manual transmission...if not for resale value, but for performance.

You're generally gonna get the better times and stats with manual over automatic, if you know how to drive the manual...

I've never owned a car with auto transmission, and only one car have I ever owned had more than 2 seats (that one was an '86 911 Turbo, but those rear seats aren't really useable for anything but 2x bags of groceries).....

LOL...anyway, good thoughts on the camera, but ugh...a sports car with auto transmission? A waste of good steel....

OMGzzzz!!1!!one!1!!!!!! I'd never even drive an automatic! I am British though, and those things are quite rare here. Why would you let the car decide what gear you need to be in?

I'm possibly the only person that will survive when the robots take over, it appears.

And besides, after you've had a couple drinks and have to drive home....having to shift keeps your attention very well centered on driving, how fast you're going...etc.